self
Children need a strong adult relationship
‘We should also, however, recognise that some adults fail to raise their children properly, fail to care for them, and fail to socialise them.’
So, a voice of reason. Chris Gardiner is the CEO of the Police and Community Youth Clubs. He posted a great article on The Punch today about kids at risk. That quote is from his article.
He argues that we should be investing in our youth in trouble, because while ‘re-socialising dysfunctional, delinquent kids is relationship and resource intensive, … it is cheaper and more effective in the long run than detention centres and prisons. For example, it costs $11 per day for youth conferencing, and $556 per day for custody.’
(And just to explain why this is an issue, he notes that NSW has several times the number of kids in detention that Victoria has, and that over half the kids locked up are aboriginal.)
It’s the same message we hear from the ‘children at risk’ support system. Get into the family, support them, stop the family structure breaking down. Fix it, rather than manage the fallout.
So why does Gardiner’s article sound more realistic to us?
He puts the child at the centre of it.
After that early statement about the family, he talks about the child, and what they need. Let’s be blunt - he doesn’t talk about propping up a failing family structure. He advocates action with the child, and for the child. He says we need to give these children ‘the chance for social development that they have been thus far denied’.
There is no reason why support for the family shouldn’t continue. But it should be separate to support allocated to the child.
And here’s the paragraph that could well be written for children in care.
‘For intervention to work, though, it must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship and an alternative peer setting. Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants (as interagency case management often becomes).’
This issue of attachment came up in an American Academy of Paediatrics article on Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care , and we wrote about it previously on our blog. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Academy article:
‘Having at least 1 adult who is devoted to and loves a child unconditionally, who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time, is key to helping a child overcome the stress and trauma of abuse and neglect.’
So we think those two paragraphs might contain some guidance for assessing whether a child at risk is getting what they need:
Those of us lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing family will read those points and understand what they mean. We know what that looks and feels like.
So, how long should we take to decide a child is NOT getting that, and what are we prepared to do about it?
So, a voice of reason. Chris Gardiner is the CEO of the Police and Community Youth Clubs. He posted a great article on The Punch today about kids at risk. That quote is from his article.
He argues that we should be investing in our youth in trouble, because while ‘re-socialising dysfunctional, delinquent kids is relationship and resource intensive, … it is cheaper and more effective in the long run than detention centres and prisons. For example, it costs $11 per day for youth conferencing, and $556 per day for custody.’
(And just to explain why this is an issue, he notes that NSW has several times the number of kids in detention that Victoria has, and that over half the kids locked up are aboriginal.)
It’s the same message we hear from the ‘children at risk’ support system. Get into the family, support them, stop the family structure breaking down. Fix it, rather than manage the fallout.
So why does Gardiner’s article sound more realistic to us?
He puts the child at the centre of it.
After that early statement about the family, he talks about the child, and what they need. Let’s be blunt - he doesn’t talk about propping up a failing family structure. He advocates action with the child, and for the child. He says we need to give these children ‘the chance for social development that they have been thus far denied’.
There is no reason why support for the family shouldn’t continue. But it should be separate to support allocated to the child.
And here’s the paragraph that could well be written for children in care.
‘For intervention to work, though, it must be built on an intense engagement around a single, consistent and strong adult relationship and an alternative peer setting. Kids need an adult committed to them, and not a committee of social workers and public servants (as interagency case management often becomes).’
This issue of attachment came up in an American Academy of Paediatrics article on Developmental Issues for Young Children in Foster Care , and we wrote about it previously on our blog. Here’s the relevant paragraph from the Academy article:
‘Having at least 1 adult who is devoted to and loves a child unconditionally, who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time, is key to helping a child overcome the stress and trauma of abuse and neglect.’
So we think those two paragraphs might contain some guidance for assessing whether a child at risk is getting what they need:
- A single, consistent and strong adult relationship
- An adult committed to them (our comment – in action, not words)
- An adult devoted to them
- An adult who loves them unconditionally
- An adult who is prepared to accept and value that child for a long time
Those of us lucky enough to grow up in a nurturing family will read those points and understand what they mean. We know what that looks and feels like.
So, how long should we take to decide a child is NOT getting that, and what are we prepared to do about it?
|
How foster children respond to stress
By the time I ended up at my first Foster Care home, so much had been taken from me. I no longer had a sense of self, family, belonging, comfort, familiarity, unconditional love, trust, confidence (let’s face it, this comes from stability), and hope! If I use my adult voice I can explain that I was angry, hurt, devastated, abandoned, emotionally disconnected, physically beaten, verbally abused, ridiculed by society and my peers, and completely petrified! I am almost 4 years old.
These words are from Jenny, at www.fostercareinamerica.com. She and her brother Mat write about their memories of childhood. If ever you have stared at your foster child and wondered what is going on, you will find insight here. It’s a unique perspective and we applaud Jenny for having the courage and the energy to show it.
We find those two paragraphs quite hard to read. They represent the stripping away, for a child, of all that they have known. And at 4 years of age, a child has little left.
What is compelling about Jenny’s post is how she talks about the rage that came, unbidden and usually unexpectedly.
These episodes came without warning, calm one minute, and then the rage would surface.
Are you surprised? That a child of four might respond this way?
Mat on the other hand, describes withdrawing, shutting down.
We’ve been highlighting an article from the American Academy of Pediatrics – Developmental Issues for Young children in Foster Care. It has a section on the response in children to psychological stress.
Physical and mental abuse during the first few years of life tends to fix the brain in an acute stress mode that makes the child respond in a hyper-vigilant, fearful manner.
When a child is under acute stress, the typical ‘fight’ response to stress may change from crying – because that was unsuccessful – to temper tantrums, aggressive behaviour, or inattention and withdrawal.
The child, rather than physically running away - the ‘flight’ response, may psychologically disengage. It’s called the freeze response – a child may react to alarm or stress by ceasing any activity. Adults unfamiliar with the child may think they are uncooperative.
We’ve found the article very enlightening, and quite scary. Because it is telling us that these experiences can have a profound impact on a child.
So that’s why we love fostercareinamerica.com. Because Jen shows us how kids can come through. She celebrates the overcoming of adversity for the most vulnerable in society. She shows us it is possible. As carers, faced with a small bundle or anger/anxiety/silence, that’s good to remember.
You can't force a relationship
‘THE Family Court has warned separated parents that they are required to hand over children for access visits, whether the children want to go or not.
While parents don't have to "physically drag" the children to the other parent, they do have to "positively encourage" them to go, and punish those who refuse.’
This quote is from an article in The Australian. The Family Court is saying that a parent should punish a child who refuses to abide by any orders made about their access with other parents. If ever there was an example of parental rights walking rough-shod over the well-being of a child, and enshrined in law, this is it.
So it struck a chord with us. Because at some stage your foster child might not want to go to a contact visit to meet with members of their birth family.
Their reaction, and how you and the support network handles it, will depend on the child, the birth family, and the stage of understanding and development the child is at. It will also depend on how skilled your social worker is, and what the social worker’s agenda is.
The article bothers us, not least because a Family Court Judge appears to be slavishly adopting what we have come to think of as dodgy law. Law becomes dodgy when it is high-jacked by interest groups, and driven by a political agenda.
It bothers us because, as Pragnell says, ‘how can it be in (a child’s) best interests to force them into a relationship?’
We’ve seen social workers ‘play God’ (and we don’t use that expression lightly) with foster children’s relationships for many, many years. We’ve seen foster families denied any follow up relationship with a foster child after a placement has ended, despite the fact that relationship was the longest and most stable of the child’s life. And we’ve experienced contact visits with birth family being managed aggressively by the social workers. Here’s a sample of what can happen:
You can’t force a relationship.
Here’s what can happen if a foster child is forced into a relationship:
But the system should tread softly for the children’s sake. There are no hard and fast rules or policy, not if you accept that every child is an individual. What is in the child’s best interest at that point in time, considering their age, circumstances, development and security, should prevail.
What should you, as a foster parent, do in these circumstances if you see a relationship being forced? Stand up for your foster child. Support what you think is best for them. Fight if you have to. We’ve done it.
While parents don't have to "physically drag" the children to the other parent, they do have to "positively encourage" them to go, and punish those who refuse.’
This quote is from an article in The Australian. The Family Court is saying that a parent should punish a child who refuses to abide by any orders made about their access with other parents. If ever there was an example of parental rights walking rough-shod over the well-being of a child, and enshrined in law, this is it.
So it struck a chord with us. Because at some stage your foster child might not want to go to a contact visit to meet with members of their birth family.
Their reaction, and how you and the support network handles it, will depend on the child, the birth family, and the stage of understanding and development the child is at. It will also depend on how skilled your social worker is, and what the social worker’s agenda is.
The article bothers us, not least because a Family Court Judge appears to be slavishly adopting what we have come to think of as dodgy law. Law becomes dodgy when it is high-jacked by interest groups, and driven by a political agenda.
It bothers us because, as Pragnell says, ‘how can it be in (a child’s) best interests to force them into a relationship?’
We’ve seen social workers ‘play God’ (and we don’t use that expression lightly) with foster children’s relationships for many, many years. We’ve seen foster families denied any follow up relationship with a foster child after a placement has ended, despite the fact that relationship was the longest and most stable of the child’s life. And we’ve experienced contact visits with birth family being managed aggressively by the social workers. Here’s a sample of what can happen:
- Members of the foster family are told not to attend. This might be despite the fact that the child is now drawing great comfort and stability from the newly forming foster relationships, and needs them even more when confronted by birth family.
- Any and all members of birth family are entitled to turn up, no notice required. So when a child is dealing with who their birth family members are and the part they play in their life, another one can appear. And just as quickly disappear.
- Social workers take an active role in access and facilitate (or force - depends on your viewpoint) intervention between the child and members of their birth family. These can be quite full on commands to a child, and very difficult for you to manage.
You can’t force a relationship.
Here’s what can happen if a foster child is forced into a relationship:
- You run the risk of alienating the child towards their birth family.
- Pushing an aggressive agenda of interaction risks the child losing trust in the social worker.
- Forcing a relationship between foster child and birth family risks the child losing faith in their foster parent. ‘You’re not in control of this’ they will say to you. ‘You can’t help me’.
But the system should tread softly for the children’s sake. There are no hard and fast rules or policy, not if you accept that every child is an individual. What is in the child’s best interest at that point in time, considering their age, circumstances, development and security, should prevail.
What should you, as a foster parent, do in these circumstances if you see a relationship being forced? Stand up for your foster child. Support what you think is best for them. Fight if you have to. We’ve done it.
Children's sense of time
Continuing our series from the American Academy of Pediatrics article.
This post deals with children’s sense of time, and how that specifically impacts children in foster care.
Placing children in care might deal with their immediate need for physical care, nourishment, comfort, affection and stimulation. But continuity of care is critical (continuity means continuous or connected). Children need to learn how to bond and trust, and that happens with a stable consistent carer over a period of time. So changes to their carer can be detrimental. Temporary care can, in fact, be detrimental.
And if a child is suffering the consequences of stress and inadequate parenting, then moving them from home to home only makes it worse. This reminds us of the Eggshells comment from Jen who writes about a foster child’s perspective at www.fostercareinamerica.com.
So how do adults deal with change and impermanence? Some restless souls like it. But most of us build on the self-reliance that we have learned, probably from stable and supportive parents and family circumstances, over the years. And we usually have the skill to anticipate and plan for a time when things settle down. We may well have experienced more settled times before, so we know what they look like.
But kids have few life experiences to draw on. They can’t pull out an experience and say ‘well, the last time that happened to me I handled it this way.’ They simply don’t have enough experiences in ‘the bank’.
And they are right in the process of discovering who they are. They don’t yet have a strong sense of ‘self’, not like adults do. It’s being created. A child in a stable family doesn’t have to be anxious about the fundamentals like nurturing, protection, trust and security. So they are free to get on with working out who they are. For a child in care energy is expended on the fundamentals. Who will care for them? Are they safe? Who will protect them? Who can they trust?
And think about how children focus. On the right here, right now. We have enough trouble getting the Camper to plan for the next hour, let alone the next month, year and so on (although the stand-out exception there is her birthday party. That goes into SWAT type planning at least 7 months before the date).
So because young children don’t understand the concept of temporary versus permanent, periods of time are largely incomprehensible to them. The younger they are, the longer the disruption – the more impact it will have.
This section of the report concludes ‘pediatricians should advocate that evaluation, planning, placement and treatment decision be made as quickly as possible, especially for very young children’. They are saying that the clock is ticking - every minute has an impact on the child.
When we hear workers say that their primary focus is on the ‘family’, we worry like hell for the individual children.
This post deals with children’s sense of time, and how that specifically impacts children in foster care.
Placing children in care might deal with their immediate need for physical care, nourishment, comfort, affection and stimulation. But continuity of care is critical (continuity means continuous or connected). Children need to learn how to bond and trust, and that happens with a stable consistent carer over a period of time. So changes to their carer can be detrimental. Temporary care can, in fact, be detrimental.
And if a child is suffering the consequences of stress and inadequate parenting, then moving them from home to home only makes it worse. This reminds us of the Eggshells comment from Jen who writes about a foster child’s perspective at www.fostercareinamerica.com.
So how do adults deal with change and impermanence? Some restless souls like it. But most of us build on the self-reliance that we have learned, probably from stable and supportive parents and family circumstances, over the years. And we usually have the skill to anticipate and plan for a time when things settle down. We may well have experienced more settled times before, so we know what they look like.
But kids have few life experiences to draw on. They can’t pull out an experience and say ‘well, the last time that happened to me I handled it this way.’ They simply don’t have enough experiences in ‘the bank’.
And they are right in the process of discovering who they are. They don’t yet have a strong sense of ‘self’, not like adults do. It’s being created. A child in a stable family doesn’t have to be anxious about the fundamentals like nurturing, protection, trust and security. So they are free to get on with working out who they are. For a child in care energy is expended on the fundamentals. Who will care for them? Are they safe? Who will protect them? Who can they trust?
And think about how children focus. On the right here, right now. We have enough trouble getting the Camper to plan for the next hour, let alone the next month, year and so on (although the stand-out exception there is her birthday party. That goes into SWAT type planning at least 7 months before the date).
So because young children don’t understand the concept of temporary versus permanent, periods of time are largely incomprehensible to them. The younger they are, the longer the disruption – the more impact it will have.
This section of the report concludes ‘pediatricians should advocate that evaluation, planning, placement and treatment decision be made as quickly as possible, especially for very young children’. They are saying that the clock is ticking - every minute has an impact on the child.
When we hear workers say that their primary focus is on the ‘family’, we worry like hell for the individual children.